G.R. No. A.C. No. 11959, April 28, 2021
Eusebio D. Sison, Petitioner, vs. Atty. Lourdes Philina B. Dumlao, Respondent.

FACTS

Sometime in July 2013, Dr. Eusebio D. Sison consulted his friend, Atty. Lourdes Philina B. Dumlao, for the purpose of filing an annulment case against his wife. He deposited P35,000.00 into Atty. Dumlao’s bank account for psychiatric evaluation fees. After nine months with no updates on the filing, Dr. Sison lost interest and demanded the return of the money. When Atty. Dumlao refused, Dr. Sison filed a disbarment complaint, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath for lack of competence and diligence. Atty. Dumlao claimed she referred Dr. Sison to a psychologist, to whom the P35,000.00 was paid, and that she later declined the case because Dr. Sison’s wife was a fifth-degree relative, creating a conflict of interest. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner and Board of Governors initially dismissed the complaint, finding no formal lawyer-client relationship and that the conflict of interest justified her refusal. Dr. Sison petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Ethics when she failed to inform complainant of the status of his case and refused to represent him due to conflict of interest.

RULING

Yes, the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court found that a lawyer-client relationship was established based on the series of text messages exchanged, wherein Atty. Dumlao voluntarily acquiesced to representing Dr. Sison, asked for documents related to the annulment case, and repeatedly assured him of filing the complaint. A lawyer-client relationship is established when a lawyer voluntarily permits or acquiesces to a consultation, regardless of the absence of a written contract, close personal ties, or non-payment of legal fees. Once established, a lawyer owes the client diligence and competence. While a lawyer may refuse representation, particularly due to a conflict of interest, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility require the lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to them and to keep the client informed of the case’s status. Atty. Dumlao failed to inform Dr. Sison that she would no longer handle his case after being approached by his mother-in-law in November 2013, and instead continued to give assurances of filing as late as February 2014. This failure to communicate her withdrawal constituted neglect. However, the Court noted she did not misappropriate funds, as the P35,000.00 was paid to the psychologist. Considering the circumstances and her acknowledgment of fault, the Court suspended Atty. Dumlao from the practice of law for three months, with a stern warning.